Ye fleeting charms of earth farewell,
Your springs of joy are dry;
My soul seeks another home.
A brighter world on high.I’m a long time trav’ling here below,
I’m a long time trav’ling away from home,
I’m a long time trav’ling here below,
To lay this body down.Farewell, my friends, whose tender care
Has long engaged my love;
Your fond embrace I now exchange
For better friends above.
Guest hosting the Mike Church Show Tuesday morning
The King Dude has been kind enough to have me back again tomorrow, so if you’re a Sirius XM listener, consider making it a part of your morning commute. The show runs from 6-9 AM on Patriot 125.
So far the guests I’ve got lined up are Edwin Black (author, IBM and the Holocaust), Roger Stone (you should know him), Jack Hunter (editor of Rare), and Jay Cost (writer at the Weekly Standard and author of the new book, A Republic No More), plus a mystery person I haven’t nailed down yet.
Update: The fifth guest will be Breitbart’s Milo Yiannopoulos.
Update II: Someone’s put my interview with Milo online re: Gamergate, Law & Order, Brianna Wu
Secession lagniappe
Sorry for the long break since the last one of these, I just don’t really have the time to do them weekly, so here’s a Hail Mary request. If there is anyone out there who would be interested in doing a secession link round-up weekly, I’d love to hand it over. Ideally it would remain fairly long, with a good mix of news links, more idea-driven content, images, and videos, collected from around the web. I have a subsection of RSS feeds and Google alerts for the purpose and could get you started, though nothing would make me happier than for someone to make this project their own. Email us if you’re interested at [email protected]
Reason has a new video on the State of Jefferson:
With the feds grabbing Jeffersonian land right and left — with the support of city-slicker California legislators — who can blame them for wanting to take matters into their own hands? Related book recommendation h/t JJ
Bill Gertz reports the Chinese are very interested in the Hawaiian restoration movement:
Chinese threats to back several groups of Hawaiian independence activists who want to restore the islands’ constitutional monarchy, ousted in a U.S.-backed coup over a century ago, has raised concerns that military facilities on the strategic central Pacific archipelago are threatened at a time when the Obama administration is engaged in a major shift toward Asia as part of its military and diplomatic rebalance.
Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon consultant and author of the recent book 100 Year Marathon, said Chinese military hawks, known as “ying pai,” told him they are ready to provide arms to Hawaiian independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. …
“A favorite comparison the ying pai has made to me is ‘How would the Pentagon like it if we provide arms to our friends in Hawaiian independence movement?’” he said. “I was incredulous because I had never heard of such a movement in Hawaii, but, after checking I met a few of them.”
Pillsbury said Chinese backing for the independence movement would be a concern. Some U.S. archival material shows U.S. authorities acted on their own in the 1898 annexation, he said, something Congress later investigated.
Let the record show that threats of Chinese support in no way alter this blog’s position in favor of Hawaiian restoration.
Spokane and the Tri-Cities are tired of the tyranny of Olympia and Seattle. Local paper endorses a split.
Mike Vanderboegh on the steps of the WA state capitol raising hell:
Ron Paul’s not shutting up
More talk about a “Third Reconstruction”
Anti-frackers threaten a lefty version of secession in Mora County, New Mexico
*****
Definitely don’t miss First Things’ symposium on American Christianity. Here’s the first essay, and Rod Dreher’s response
Went to an excellent talk at the National Interest last week by Lord Lothian on the legacy of colonial borders, here’s their write-up of his remarks
The New Inquiry on neoreaction and the occult
Tom Woods’s recent secession speech
Adam Gurri on trust in democracies:
One problem that will not go away is this: we live in a time in which numerous rival and incommensurable narratives flourish. These narratives are tied up in membership in particular communities, and they often play a part in defining people’s identities as well as their sense of purpose. The present state of things can be traced largely to the spread of the Internet and the media of the late twentieth century. The thread goes back further still, to the invention of the printing press, and the subsequent beginnings of mass literacy, and the Reformation.
Modern pluralism writ large, and liberal democracy, grew in the soil of this turmoil. But how it came about is less important than the simple fact that this conflict of visions cannot be done away with; it is and will remain the reality on the ground. This means that a democratic government will be responsive to at least some constituents who subscribe to a narrative that you may find repulsive. Similarly, it will be responsive to the constituents who share your narrative, which others may find repulsive. This is the gap at the heart of democracy, the one so many go mad trying to fill.If you let this gap define your entire view of democracy, or even a particular democracy, you will inevitably fall into pessimism and cynicism. This attitude is pervasive right now; we live in a time when negation has replaced aspiration as the primary driver of political activism. No small part of the problem comes from aspirations that demanded too much too quickly and for too little. Tired of seeing such cosmic demands disappointed, the public tips increasingly towardsopen revolt.
Rosenberg on Chaitgate:
For all I tend to find Chait’s vision of liberalism rather crabbed, there’s something idealistic about his conviction that reasonable debate will prevail promptly against the intransigence of history, without the added spurs of radicalism and intemperate language and positions. The current battles in certain sectors of the left have real costs in burned-out activists and alienated potential allies. But Chait is going to need better evidence if he wants to argue that what’s nice is a better, faster route to what’s right.
*****
National Review on a “Singapore-style city state” for white South Africans. Punch line: Rich Lowry, my favorite young adult fiction author, wrote a Jaffaite biography of Lincoln and had a recent column going after campus “secessionists”
Grannies for Sarawak secession
Czech mayor floats secession if mining plans go forward in his town
Secession may be the best solution to Yemen crisis
How cantonization can save Israel
Ryukyu/Okinawan independence movement gaining steam (it’s a fair bet the Chinese are watching this one closely too)
Phnom Penh monastery ‘secedes‘ from the CPP:
Am Sam Ath, technical supervisor for rights group Licadho, also said that the city was scrutinizing the pagoda now—some 17 years after it was established—because the pagoda was supporting protesters, and not because of the recent murder.
He scoffed at the city spokesman’s suggestion that a secessionist movement was brewing there.
“They cannot use the word ‘secession’ for the pagoda; it is a serious word,” Mr. Sam Ath said. “Secession means the pagoda wants to separate from the state. But how can they separate when the monks have no weapons?”
Mr. Sam Ath said the new committee was further proof that the government feared losing control of the monkhood.
The BJP loses Delhi
Tobago devolution
Fiji to remove Union Jack from flag
Strong support for South Tyrol-Austria unification; Breton unification
Interesting interview with Birgitta Jonsdottir
Maori sovereignty dispute
Mozambique opposition party to submit secession proposal
Norks persuade Cambodia to ban “The Interview”
Free West Papua!
Religion as anti-socialization
I agree with the hippies: when society is wrong, people can choose to be right. The religions of the world, for all their differences, tend to say the same sort of thing. Jesus proclaimed, “My kingdom is not of this world.” The lotus is a symbol of Buddhism because it is a flower that remains a pristine white amidst muddy waters, representing unsullied enlightenment in spite of the world’s dirt. This might ring more or less true depending on where you live. I happen to live in Washington, D.C., a city where it’s positively embarrassing to talk about God.
When I lived in Maryland, there was a food co-op that functioned as the neighborhood grocery store. It had mostly organic fare, and that the staff were hippies of all ages was made apparent by a bumper sticker that read, “They’re not hot flashes – they’re POWER SURGES!” on a manager’s desk. More interesting than that was the white Sikh man who worked there; besides his light skin and blue eyes, he looked like any other Sikh, complete with beard and distinctive keski turban. I can only imagine what kind of social pressures pushed him towards the path of least resistance – that is, looking and acting just like everybody else. But what, if not the defiance of socialization, makes great and unexpected things happen? And what else besides religion will give us the conviction to be not only a weirdo, but a weirdo who does the right thing?
I am a Catholic, and I am keenly aware that Catholicism isn’t hip. It will never be hip. It’s been passé for the better part of a millennium, and I don’t see it becoming anything but anti-cool to the celebrities, or whoever, anytime soon. Any desperately trendy Redditor will be the first one to mention this.
I mean, get with the times man! Do you really believe in a sky fairy because it’s mentioned in some old book? A book that doesn’t even support the latest rad things like intersectionality?
Thanks for the wake up call, WeedGoku420, but that isn’t a bug – it’s a feature. If there is transcendent truth out there, it doesn’t change to keep up with the latest clickbait listicles. Cultural change isn’t a bad thing, but neither are unchanging universals that refuse to be compromised. In fact, I think they are two sides of the same coin. There’s enough space in our society for both the fashionable and and the eternal. (more…)
When it comes to analogizing the Crusades with ISIS, let’s remember the virtue of humility please
President Obama is some teacher. As a “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School, he reportedly presented an impartial take on the Constitution and civil liberties. He wasn’t a radical, using critical theory and identity politics to undermine the Republic. Instead, he taught objectively while lecturing about American law.
That Barack Obama is gone. Away from the classroom, we’ve learned the president isn’t so generous to his opponents. At times, he proves his own description of himself as the smartest guy in the room. His supercilious nature was on display recently at the annual National Prayer Breakfast. With Islamic radicalism swallowing up greater swaths of the Middle East, Obama took to presidentsplainin’ why some broad reflection should be used in judging the new caliphate. Surprisingly, his arrogance was not totally off the mark.
Rand Paul and judicial activism
In a recent piece here at The Mitrailleuse, Robert Mariani writes the following crucial sentences:
“Words are useful insofar as they have publicly agreed upon definitions. From definitions, we can have discourse that leads to some sort of useful truth.”
Amen to that.
At the Heritage Foundation’s recent Conservative Policy Summit Senator Rand Paul made the case that conservatives should abandon their preference for “judicial restraint” and embrace a more “activist” Supreme Court. George Washington University Law professor Orin Kerr helpfully attempted to delineate the different meanings people ascribe to the loaded term “judicial activism” a few years ago. He conjures up five distinct possibilities. So what, exactly, does Dr. Paul mean when he implores conservatives to think twice about restrained courts? What definition is he operating on?
First, let me humbly offer mine.
I propose that the charge of judicial activism can be levied wherever judges operate outside of their proper job description. If courts exist to know, interpret, and apply law, then any decision not resulting strictly from a process of interpretation involving general good will toward getting that interpretation correct is an “activist” decision. This does not mean any decision passed under the guise of subjective interpretation counts as whole and good, rather that interpretation had to be deliberated in good faith and free of inappropriate influences.
This may be labeled a procedural definition of activism as opposed to one that focuses on outcome. Professor Kerr offers that a decision itself (to strike down or leave intact a law), its implications for the scope of judicial power, its consistency with precedents, and its subjective accuracy (right/wrong) are all potential reasons people see a ruling as activist. These are outcome-based definitions as they focus on how the decision and its contingent effects help define restraint or activism, and I ultimately see Kerr’s lone remaining explanation (“the decision was motivated by the Justices’ personal policy preferences or was result-oriented.”) as the closest to a true procedural characteristic.
Outcome-based definitions are inadequate in my view because we require information on how that verdict was reached. Seeing if a decision passes some static test is not enough. Court deliberation is a process and it is here that dubious motivations enter, not after the fact. Noting that a court decision cut against precedent tells us nothing of why it did so and it does nothing to illuminate the purity of intent, or lack thereof, of those deciding. (Admittedly it is in this view of activism as ignoring precedent where my narrow focus on process is most likely to falter, as one may view the application of previous law, regardless of subjective opinion, as part of a court’s “job description” I invoke above.)
It is true that an outcome-oriented definition may simply function as a signaling device for the process itself. For example, if the decision expands judicial power we may condemn it because we infer perverse reasons for why it was reached. But this would only mean these activist definitions collapse into a proper procedural view, however helpful they may be on their own.
